CVS checkout as of today (btw., Chris, whatever became
of the JavaCVS distribution you wanted to wrap up...
2 months ago? 3 months?).
=== java Summary ===
# of expected passes89
# of unexpected failures9
I especially like:
Fatal Java VM Error: ThrowNew unab
First I had to remove a japharh from August :-). Then,
I got:
japharhjaphar --classpath=./classes --stubs Whatever
(gdb) where
#0 0x40034b34 in ?? () from /opt/local/lib/libruntime.so.1
#1 0x400350c5 in ?? () from /opt/local/lib/libruntime.so.1
#2 0x40048276 in ?? () from /opt/local/lib/libr
Chris Toshok writes:
> > CVS checkout as of today
> > I am not up to date on your code base.
> you aren't? please update before sending bug reports...
I said: CVS checkout as of today. I just haven't read and
understood every single cvs-commit message from the last
month's backlog.
> I thou
John Keiser writes:
> > There was a list debate about initialization in general.
> > I voted for "initialize on load", which is not in
> > accordance with the specs.
>
> After having written the bootstrap classes, I *must* disagree.
> They have good reasons for delaying initialization, it m
Tom Tromey writes:
> I believe we currently require GNU make, sh, a Java runtime, and a
> Java compiler. It would probably be possible to get rid of the GNU
> make dependency. I'm not particularly motivated to do it.
There is a JavaMake ( and a JavaDepend
http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~stever/sof
SOT, but you have prolly solved this already...
How do you prevent somebody taking a (L)GPL'ed or Open
source for a JVM and/or core classes, hacking backdoors
and trojan horses into it, and deploying it? To be
more precise: sure it'll be either obvious (source is
there) or illegal (violation of
Godmar Back writes:
> No, it's the GPL; what I described was Tim Wilkinson's interpretation.
> The question revolves about what "linking" is.
>
> Tim's interpretation coincides with the interpretation of other people.
> Below, I append a mail Jules Bean sent. Jules is involved in the Debian
Petter Reinholdtsen writes:
> [Edward Ribeiro]
> > The idea of a portable Java interpreter seens to be very good, but
> > what kind of application will have advantage with a embedded JVM?
Weird question to begin with. The "java" VM binary, no?
> Well, currently, I know of two. Mozilla/Netsc
A dumb question about clean-room VM's and JNI.
JNI is supposed to be binary compatible - a DLL
created using a compliant jni.h is supposed to work
with any VM.
The JNI specs specifies jobject as opaque struct.
Is this sufficient for a binary compatible JNI
clean-room implementation?
So, is a
